click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121027
20121104
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
reagan, there was a rather more valued position of fema. it declined under george h.w. bush. it was restored and then upgraded to a cabinet level position under bill clinton, and then reorganized under homeland security to an ancillary position within the broader framework there. so the problem is when you have competing forms of disaster for our attention, one which is natural, another one which is so-called manmade, you have a kind of moral triage going on in the government and that's problematic. the democrats have got it right. you put fema on its own bottom, allow it to address federal emergencies, and then you deliver resources to states and to local governments from the central organization of the government. yes, you're right. i think julian epstein is absolutely right. the democrats have been inclined to help those who are in need, and this is a challenge to us and a choice for americans here. what kind of government do you want? one that stands behind you when you are in trouble, or the one that kicks you to the curb and pours salt in your already open wounds and t
was nearly destroyed under the irresponsibility and neglect of george w. bush, could we be forgiven for concluding that republicans, can they be trusted on this issue? >> it doesn't seem like we can. sequestration will cut fema another 8%. remember, the republicans kind of led the charge with sequestrati sequestration. there are so many challenges for us to consider. we talk about october surprises. it's really unique to have a national natural disaster as an october surprise because i think it should open people's mites up to what the folk on the right have been talking about about gutting government and privatizing everything. you can't privatize disaster relief. we know about all the scams. you need the government to coordinate across the states. you can sakic it back to the states but we need coordination across the states for this kind of relief effort and also, martin, finally here, in the absence of any kind of government intervention with respect to climate change, to go on the other end of that and then to also say we want to cut and demolish fema is absolutely absurd. we n
would want a president to do in this sort of situation. it's, frankly, what george w. bush did not do in hurricane katrina and we saw the result as well as the political price. so, i think it's fascinating, for people to watch, as chris christie, as pugnacious as he is, on the republican side, for republican ideas and values, to see where that ends for him. to see him say, essentially, but, yes, there is a big role for government in our society, and thank god we have it. >> indeed. richard, mr. romney has spent, as you know, each of the debates repeatedly suggesting, and in florida, i was just listening to him, and he was saying again, i'm the man for bipartisanship. i'm the person who can bring both sides of the aisle together. and what do we have in front of our very eyes, but the president embodying the very thing that this man can only talk about. >> right. and that's, of course, what challenges are left with. they're left with a promise and a speech and a microphone and a stage, where presidents can actually do stuff. the interest thing is that for four years, the republican part
irony of this man's claim, isn't it? >> a couple years ago when george w. bush is being blamed for a weak economy, nothing like the one he bequeathed to president obama, romney said it is ridiculous to blame a president for a weak economy given that he came in during a recession. i mean, what was president bush supposed to do? recession began a little after he came in. of course it wasn't his fault. when he was president -- or when he was governor, i'm sorry, he said the fact that they didn't have very good job growth in the first 11 months of his term couldn't be blamed on him. he had just gotten into office. and then under obama if you wipe out the first year of his term, which, of course, was a huge, huge drop in the global economy which nobody seriously blames on him, yeah, things look a lot better. romney has had to jettison a series of very, very sober analyses of the role that the executives actually play in economic growth in order to make these arguments. so, yeah, they shift will you the bigger problem is they're just fundamentally wrong. >> right. now, you have a pos
bill clinton and george h.w. bush raised for their entire presidential campaigns 20 years ago. we're joined by bill cohen, a columnist for bloomberg view and the author of "money and power, how goldman sachs came to rule the world." what do you make of the amount of money that's being spent, but specifically the so-called social welfare organizations who are completely unaccountable and completely unidentifiable because nobody knows who they are, they spent millions of dollars and 83% of the spending has been used to attack democrats. >> well, once again it's the lack of accountability that we see across government. we see it across wall street. to be able to spend that kind of money targeting your message against democrats and not know who is behind it i don't think is doing our democracy any good. and i think, you know, once we get through this election cycle, i think that's one thing that we need to take a new look at and see if we can possibly change that. there was that incredibly good program on front line the other day examining this very long and it was mind boggling the m
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)